Delhi District Court
Through His Attorney vs Sh. Bhupal Singh Negi on 21 October, 2016
IN THE COURT OF SH. MAHAVIR SINGHAL
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE (WEST)
TIS HAZARI : DELHI
CIV DJ No. 610862/16
SH. KHUSHAL SINGH RAWAT
S/o Late Ganga Singh Rawat
R/o H. No. C808, First Floor,
Vikas Puri, New Delhi.
Through His Attorney
Sh. Lalit Kumar
S/o Late Sh. Tej Singh
R/o C727, Ground Floor,
Vikas Puri, New Delhi18.
......PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
SH. BHUPAL SINGH NEGI
S/o Sh. Kunwar Singh Negi
R/o C808, Ground Floor,
Vikas Puri, New Delhi18.
....DEFENDANT
Page No. 1/24 Khushal Singh Rawat Vs Bhupal Singh Negi. CIV DJ No. 610862/16
Date of filing the suit : 17.02.2011
Date of reserving the Judgment/Order : 20.09.2016
Date of passing the Judgment/Order : 21.10.2016
JUDGMENT: The plaintiff filed the present suit for possession, mesne profits and permanent injunction, stating therein that the present suit is filed through his attorney Sh. Lalit Kumar S/o Late Sh. Tej Singh. It is further stated that defendant is the relative of the plaintiff and he (Defendant) is the husband of his sisterinlaw (husband of his wife's sister).
2 It is further stated that in 1980, the DDA allotted a plot bearing No. 808, Block No. C, admeasuring area 70 sq. yards, situated in the Vikas Puri, New Delhi in favour of the plaintiff. The plaintiff paid the total demand amount to the DDA and became the absolute owner and in possession of the said property. It is stated further that plaintiff was doing the service in USA and therefore, he was unable to construct the residential house at that above said plot and therefore, he executed a power of attorney dated 29.07.1983 in favour of the defendant to Page No. 2/24 Khushal Singh Rawat Vs Bhupal Singh Negi. CIV DJ No. 610862/16 construct the residential house at the above said plot. 3 It is stated further that the plaintiff had paid all the amount in respect of construction of his residential house and two floors were constructed i.e. ground floor and first floor at the above said plot. Construction work was completed in the year of 198485 and the plaintiff paid an amount of Rs. 2,70,000/ to the defendant, who was looking after his construction work as his attorney at the above said plot. It is stated further that at that time, the total expenditure in above said construction was Rs. 2,05,000/ approximately, but, the plaintiff had paid the total amount of Rs. 2,70,000/ through bank cheque payable to the defendant. A site plan in respect of proposed construction was also prepared by the competent Architect, prior to construction of the above said plot.
4 It is stated further that after the construction, the plaintiff got installed the electricity meter and water connection at the above said premises in his name. Defendant, who is his relative and attorney for his construction work, requested him to allow the defendant to reside as a licensee of the plaintiff in the ground floor of the property bearing No. C808, Vikas Puri, New Delhi18. Page No. 3/24 Khushal Singh Rawat Vs Bhupal Singh Negi. CIV DJ No. 610862/16 5 It is stated further that the plaintiff allowed the defendant to reside as licensee in the ground floor of the property bearing No. C808, Vikas Puri, New Delhi18. It is stated further that defendant admitted this fact in various letters written by him to the plaintiff and admitted that the plaintiff paid all the amount in respect of construction work and he requested the plaintiff to send the amount for deposit of the House Tax and Water Tax several times and the same were sent to him and it was deposited on behalf of the plaintiff to the competent authority. 6 The plaintiff visited India several times and stayed at the first floor of the property bearing No. C808, Vikas Puri, New Delhi18. It is stated that the plaintiff and defendant had good relationship and therefore, the defendant was enjoying the ground floor of the property as licensee of the plaintiff. It is stated that the construction work had been completed already and therefore, the plaintiff had revoked his power of attorney dated 29.07.1983, on 19.03.2008. 7 It is stated further that after revocation of the power of attorney, the defendant started false claim as an owner in respect of ground floor of the property bearing no. C808, Vikas Puri, New Delhi18, where he is residing as licensee of Page No. 4/24 Khushal Singh Rawat Vs Bhupal Singh Negi. CIV DJ No. 610862/16 the plaintiff and the said false claim came to be known to the plaintiff in the year 2009 by first time by some person, but, when he inquired from the defendant, he replied on telephone that it was false. It is stated further that plaintiff came in India in the month of October, 2010 and, he found that the defendant became dishonest and he was falsely claiming himself as an owner of the ground floor of the property bearing no. C808, Vikas Puri, New Delhi18.
8 It is stated further that the plaintiff requested him orally to vacate the possession of his property ground floor bearing No. C808, Vikas Puri, New Delhi 18, but, the defendant denied and claimed falsely that he was the owner of the said property of the said floor, which is subject matter of the suit. It is stated further that the plaintiff got the suit property freehold from the DDA and appropriate document has been executed by the DDA in respect of the freehold of the property in favour of the plaintiff.
9 It is stated further that plaintiff issued a legal notice dated 20.11.2010 to the defendant through Registered Post and AD and informed him that his license had been revoked and requested him to deliver the vacant and peaceful possession Page No. 5/24 Khushal Singh Rawat Vs Bhupal Singh Negi. CIV DJ No. 610862/16 of the suit property to the plaintiff to which he became unauthorized occupant. The said notice was duly served upon the defendant and it was replied by his Advocate vide reply dated 06.12.2010, whereby, he claimed falsely as an owner of the suit property on the ground floor. Hence, plaintiff filed the present suit for possession, mesne profit and permanent injunction.
10 Defendant in his WS has taken preliminary objections, mainly being that the suit of the plaintiff is hopelessly timebarred and thus, is liable to be dismissed as the defendant is in physical possession of the suit property for more than 27 years as a lawful owner. It is stated further in the WS that defendant himself constructed the said suit property and all the receipts regarding building materials, labor payments are in possession of the defendant. The defendant has been residing in the suit property in his own right of ownership, without the interference and interruption of the plaintiff or anybody else since 1984 and is also having ration card and his name stands enlisted in the voter list. It is stated further in the WS that plaintiff has not come to the Court with clean hands and he has suppressed the true material facts from the Court. It is stated further that the Page No. 6/24 Khushal Singh Rawat Vs Bhupal Singh Negi. CIV DJ No. 610862/16 factual position is that the plaintiff is a close relative of the defendant i.e. the husband of the sisterinlaw. It is stated further that plaintiff has been a permanent resident of USA and was permanently stationed there alongwith his family and the plaintiff had no interest at all in settling down in India. It is stated further that since the plaintiff was thinking of surrender of the said plot to the DDA, he and his wife consulted the defendant and approached the defendant to use, by way of sharing, that plot in constructing and dividing halfhalf with the plaintiff. The plaintiff approached that he and his family had throughout been the resident of USA and only for the sake of contingency, in case of emergency, there should be a residence in Delhi and accordingly, the plaintiff persuaded the defendant number of times to admit his proposal, for constructing two floors i.e. ground floor and first floor on the said plot. It is stated further in the WS that on this condition and understanding, the cost of the construction and plot was to be divided equally between the plaintiff and the defendant. This fact has been acknowledged by the plaintiff in writing. It is stated that after discussion with the plaintiff, the defendant endorsed the proposal of the plaintiff and accordingly, the plaintiff executed the Page No. 7/24 Khushal Singh Rawat Vs Bhupal Singh Negi. CIV DJ No. 610862/16 SPA in favour of the defendant on 27.07.1983 and the defendant started the construction work on the said plot as per mutual settlement of the plaintiff and the defendant in the year 1983. It is stated further that the said construction was completed in the year 1984. It is further stated that as per the verbal mutual settlement, the plaintiff had sent a total sum of Rs. 1,94,429/ only from time to time on account of construction cost of his share, out of the total costs of construction i.e. Rs 4 lacs and further promised to pay the balance amount of his share to the defendant. It is stated that it was also settled between the plaintiff and the defendant verbally that the ground floor shall remain in possession of the defendant as a owner and he shall even continue to be in possession of the first floor of the said property as owner, subject to the plaintiff's return from the USA. It is stated further in the WS that after the completion of the entire construction, the defendant shifted to ground floor portion of the property as his own right of ownership of the said portion and the first floor was lying vacant and in possession of the defendant for the residence of the plaintiff as and when the plaintiff returned to India. It is further stated in the WS that whenever the plaintiff, alongwith his Page No. 8/24 Khushal Singh Rawat Vs Bhupal Singh Negi. CIV DJ No. 610862/16 family members, visited India for spending holidays, the plaintiff and his family lived together in the said premises and enjoyed the holidays. It is stated further that everything was running smoothly and not only this, the defendant is also paying ground rent, house tax, electricity and water charges from the date of completion of construction till date from his own pocket exclusively. It is stated further in the WS that defendant spent a sum of Rs. 2,40,000/ approximately on addition, alternation and renovation work of ground floor and first floor in the year 2004 from his own pocket as per mutual consent and understanding and the plaintiff has promised to clear all the amount of expenditure of his share to the defendant, but the plaintiff has not paid the said expenditure amount till date. It is stated further in the WS that when the plaintiff visited India in the year 2009, the defendant requested him to execute the ownership documents of his ground floor portion in his favour as per mutual settlement and also pay the balance amount of construction costs of his share, but, the plaintiff postponed the matter on one pretext or the other. It is stated further that defendant was mum keeping in view the relations between the plaintiff and the defendant. It is stated further that again in September, 2010, when the Page No. 9/24 Khushal Singh Rawat Vs Bhupal Singh Negi. CIV DJ No. 610862/16 plaintiff visited India alongwith his wife, the defendant requested again to execute the ownership documents of his ground floor portion. At this, the plaintiff and his wife got annoyed and started quarreling with the defendant and his family members. It is stated further that the intention of the plaintiff had become malafide because of hike in price of the property in the locality. It is stated that instead of fulfilling the request of the defendant, the plaintiff filed the present suit on totally false, baseless, frivolous, fabricated, purely concocted grounds. 11 Plaintiff filed the replication, in which he denied all the contents of the WS of the defendants and reiterated his version as correct. 12 From the pleadings of the parties, vide ordersheet dated 24.01.2013, following issues were framed:
1. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is barred by limitation? OPD
2. Whether the suit has not been signed, verified and filed by duly authorized person? OPD
3. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is hit by the provisions of Prohibition of Benami Transactions Act? OPD
4. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not properly valued for the Page No. 10/24 Khushal Singh Rawat Vs Bhupal Singh Negi. CIV DJ No. 610862/16 purposes of Court fees and jurisdiction? OPD
5. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of possession, as prayed for? OPP
6. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of mesne profits? If so, at what rate and for which period? OPP
7. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of injunction, as prayed for? OPP
8. Relief.
13 In PE, plaintiff examined himself as PW2 on his affidavit Ex. PW 2/A, one Sh. Lalit Kumar, SPA of plaintiff, as PW1 on his affidavit Ex. PW1/A. And Sh. Rajinder Pd, AZI, Property Tax Department, West Zone, South Delhi Municipal Corporation Delhi as PW3. They relied upon documents Ex. PW1/1, Ex. PW1/2 and Ex. PW2/1 to Ex. PW2/18. Document Ex. PW2/5 was de exhibited and marked as MarkA. Documents Ex. PW1/2/11 and Ex. PW2/12 were also deexhibited as the same were filed by the defendant. In cross examination of PW2, one letter written by PW2 was also exhibited as Ex. PW 2/D1. Copies of Passport were also exhibited in crossexamination as Ex. PW Page No. 11/24 Khushal Singh Rawat Vs Bhupal Singh Negi. CIV DJ No. 610862/16 2/PX1 (Colly) and Ex. PW2/PX2 (Colly). Photocopy of complete file of property tax in respect of property bearing No. C808, Vikas Puri, New Delhi is Ex. PW3/1 and Notice dated 29.03.1985 as Ex. PW23/A (Colly).
14 In DE, defendant examined himself as DW1 on his affidavit Ex. DW A, one Sh. Gyan Singh as DW2 on his affidavit Ex. DW2/A, Sh. Uday Chand Bhartwal as DW3 on his affidavit Ex. DW3/A, Sh. Nandan Singh Chauhan as DW4 on his affidavit Ex. DW4/A, Sh. Chandan Singh Negi as DW5 on his affidavit Ex. DW5/A and one Sh. Kartik Singh, Clerk, Punjab and Sindh Bank, Cannaught Circus Branch, New Delhi as DW6. They relied upon documents Ex. DW1/1 to Ex. DW1/9. Document Ex. DW1/6 was already Ex. PW2/P1. DW1 has also filed the additional affidavit as Ex. DW1/B and relied upon document Ex. DW1/10 also. DW3 relied upon document Ex. DW3/1. DW6 relied upon document i.e. record from Sh. Sudhir Bhalla, Senior Manager, Punjab and Sindh Bank, HBlock, Cannaught Circus, New Delhi as Ex. DW6/A. 15 Final arguments have been heard from Sh. Nitin Sony, Ld. Counsel for plaintiff and from Sh. Rajesh Bhatia, Ld. Counsel for defendant. Written Synopsis Page No. 12/24 Khushal Singh Rawat Vs Bhupal Singh Negi. CIV DJ No. 610862/16 has also been filed for plaintiff.
16 During arguments, Ld. Counsel for plaintiff has relied on following judgments:
1. "Babita Joshi (Through her duly appointed Attorney) Vs Dilip Rawat", CM (M) No. 393/2014.
2. "Firstcorp International Limited Vs Kuljit Singh Bhutalia", RFA No. 15/2013.
17 During arguments, Ld. Counsel for defendnt has relied on following judgments:
1. "K. Nanjappa (D) By LRs Vs R.A. Hameed @ Ameersab (D) by LR & Anr.", VII (2015) SLT 100.
2. "Sanjeev Kansal Vs Laxmi Chand Sharma", 2013 I AD (DELHI) 373. I have gone through the record carefully.
Page No. 13/24 Khushal Singh Rawat Vs Bhupal Singh Negi. CIV DJ No. 610862/16 DECISION ON ISSUE No. 1 : 18 This issue is "whether the suit of the plaintiff is barred by limitation". The onus to prove this issue is on the defendant. In para no. 1 of the preliminary objections in WS, it is the case of the defendant that suit of the plaintiff is hopelessly timebarred. Defendant has been in physical possession of the suit property for more than 27 years as a lawful owner. He himself constructed the suit property and all the receipts regarding building materials, labour payments are in possession of the defendant. He has been residing in the suit property in his own right of ownership without any interference and interruption from the plaintiff or anybody else and is also having ration card and his name stands listed in the voter list.
19 It is worth noting that since, as per the case of defendant, the plot was allotted in the name of the plaintiff, it is the plaintiff who can be stated to be lawful owner of the suit property, till is/was any subsequent event conferring ownership of the suit property on defendant. Article 65 of Limitation Act provides limitation period of 12 years for possession of immovable property or any interest therein Page No. 14/24 Khushal Singh Rawat Vs Bhupal Singh Negi. CIV DJ No. 610862/16 based on title. The said period of 12 years starts when the possession of the defendant becomes adverse to the plaintiff.
20 In para no. 8 of the plaint, it is stated by the plaintiff that defendant, who is relative and also attorney for construction work, required him (plaintiff) to allow him (defendant) to reside as a licensee of the plaintiff in the ground floor of the property bearing no. C808, Vikas Puri, New Delhi18. 21 In para no. 11 of the plaint, it is stated that the defendant was authorized by the plaintiff to enjoy ground floor of the suit property as his licensee and also to look after his property. In para no. 12 of the plaint, it is stated that the plaintiff revoked his Power of Attorney dated 29.07.1983 on 19.03.2008. In para no. 13 of the plaint, it is stated that after revocation of Power of Attorney, defendant started claiming falsely to be owner in respect of ground floor of property bearing no. C808, Vikas Puri, New Delhi18. Thus, as per the case of plaintiff, defendant started claiming to be owner of the suit property w.e.f. 19.03.2008. PW2 Sh. Khushal Singh Rawat, in crossexamination for defendant, has admitted that defendant has been living in the suit property since 1984 and he did not raise any Page No. 15/24 Khushal Singh Rawat Vs Bhupal Singh Negi. CIV DJ No. 610862/16 objection as he was having good relations with defendant. It is admitted that he has raised objections for the first time in the year 2010. This was the reply of PW2 in reference to suggestion given to him. Thus, as per the case of the defendant also, plaintiff raised objections for the first time in the year 2010. In other words, it was in the year 2010 when possession of the defendant became adverse to plaintiff. 22 It is worth noting that present suit was file don 17.02.2011. Thus, the present suit was filed within 12 years from time when possession of defendant became adverse to plaintiff. Accordingly, present suit is not barred by law of limitation. Hence, this issue is decided in favour of plaintiff and against the defendant.
DECISION ON ISSUE No. 2 : 23 This issue is "whether the suit has not been signed, verified and filed by duly authorized person". The onus to prove this issue is on the defendant. In para no. 6 of preliminary objections in WS, it is the case of the defendant that the suit has not been filed by duly authorized attorney of the plaintiff. The alleged attorney Sh. Lalit Kumar is a Builder in locality and he has no personal knowledge Page No. 16/24 Khushal Singh Rawat Vs Bhupal Singh Negi. CIV DJ No. 610862/16 about the mutual settlement and understanding between plaintiff and defendant in the year 1983.
24 It is worth noting that Ex. PW1/1 is a General Power of Attorney executed by plaintiff in favour of Sh. Lalit Kumar. No doubt, the second page of the said document has not been filed for plaintiff. There is no objection of defendant in this regard, during arguments. The only objection of defendant is that the said Sh. Lalit Kumar has no personal knowledge about the mutual settlement and understanding between plaintiff and defendant.
25 It is worth noting that as regards evidence, plaintiff himself appeared in the witnessbox as PW2.
26 In view of the above discussion, it is held that the suit has been signed, verified and filed by a duly authorized person. In other words, this issue is decided in favour of plaintiff and against the defendant.
DECISION ON ISSUE No. 3 : 27 This issue is "whether the suit of plaintiff is hit by the provisions of Prohibition of Benami Transactions Act". The onus to prove this issue is on the Page No. 17/24 Khushal Singh Rawat Vs Bhupal Singh Negi. CIV DJ No. 610862/16 defendant. Section 4 (1) of Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988 provides as under: "4. Prohibition of the right to recover property held benami - (1) No suit, claim or action to enforce any right in respect of any property held benami against the person in whose name the property is held or against any other person shall lie by or on behalf of a person claiming to be the real owner of such property."
28 In this case, it is the case of the plaintiff that in 1980, DDA allotted plot no. 808, BlockC, area admeasuring 70 sq. yards, Vikas Puri, New Delhi in favour of plaintiff. He (plaintiff) paid the total demand amount to DDA and became absolute owner and in possession of the said property. 29 It is worth noting that there is no case of plaintiff that he held the property benami against the defendant. Thus, the suit of plaintiff is not hit by provisions of Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988. Hence, this issue is decided in favour of plaintiff and against the defendant. Page No. 18/24 Khushal Singh Rawat Vs Bhupal Singh Negi. CIV DJ No. 610862/16 DECISION ON ISSUE No. 4 : 30 This issue is "whether the suit of plaintiff is not property valued for the purpose of Court fees and jurisdiction". The onus to prove this issue is on the defendant. In the present suit, plaintiff has valued the suit at Rs. 16,10,130/. In para no. 8 of preliminary objections in WS, it is the case of defendant that the suit property is at present valued atleast at Rs. 25 lacs and this Court has no pecuniary jurisdiction to try and entertain the present suit.
31 It is worth noting that defendant has not proved on record the market value of the suit property. Hence, the objection of defendant in this regard is vague. Thus, this issue is decided in favour of plaintiff and against the defendant.
DECISION ON ISSUE No. 5 : 32 This issue is "whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of possession, as prayed for". The onus to prove this issue is on the plaintiff. It is an admitted case of parties that suit land was allotted in favour of plaintiff by the DDA. Defendant has relied upon letter Ex. PW2/D1 (also Ex. DW1/6), written by plaintiff to defendant to allege that there was oral mutual settlement between the Page No. 19/24 Khushal Singh Rawat Vs Bhupal Singh Negi. CIV DJ No. 610862/16 parties. It is stated in the said letter that after construction of the house, defendant could live in the half of the same and in the other half of the same, the plaintiff would live.
33 During arguments, there is no denial for plaintiff that there can be oral mutual settlement between the parties. It is the submission for plaintiff that the said letter does not go to prove any mutual agreement between the parties. 34 I am of the considered view that alleged unilateral offer contained in the said letter cannot be accepted as mutual settlement because of being devoid of required sufficient details.
35 In view of the above discussion, it is held that plaintiff is entitled for the relief of possession in respect of ground floor of the property bearing no. C808, Vikas Puri, New Delhi18. Thus, this issue is decided in favour of plaintiff and against the defendant.
DECISION ON ISSUE No. 6 : 36 This issue is "whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of mesne profits? If so, at what rate and for which period?". The onus to prove this issue is Page No. 20/24 Khushal Singh Rawat Vs Bhupal Singh Negi. CIV DJ No. 610862/16 on the plaintiff.
37 It is worth noting that plaintiff and defendant are related to each other. The defendant is husband of plaintiff's wife's sister. As per the case of plaintiff, defendant was his licensee in respect of the ground floor of the property bearing no. C808, Vikas Puri, New Delhi18. There is no case of plaintiff that any rent was intended by plaintiff from the defendant in respect of use of the suit property. Though, letter Ex. PW1/D1 (also Ex. DW1/6) (supra), cannot be stated to be mutual settlement conferring ownership on defendant, yet the same is useful to conclude that plaintiff did not intend any license fee/mesne profit for use and occupation of the suit property by defendant. Thus, plaintiff is not entitled for the relief of mesne profit. Accordingly, this issue is decided in favour of defendant and against the plaintiff.
DECISION ON ISSUE No. 7 : 38 This issue is "whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of injunction, as prayed for?". The onus to prove this issue is on the plaintiff. In the plaint, plaintiff has claimed a decree for permanent injunction against the defendant Page No. 21/24 Khushal Singh Rawat Vs Bhupal Singh Negi. CIV DJ No. 610862/16 thereby restraining him (defendant), his LRs, associates, agents, servants and others from creating third party interest, alienating, transferring the suit property i.e. ground floor of the property bearing no. C808, Vikas Puri, New Delhi18. Section 38 of Specific Relief Act, 1963 provides as under: "38. Perpetual injunction when granted - (1) Subject to the other provisions contained in or referred to by this Chapter, a perpetual injunction may be granted to the plaintiff to prevent the breach of an obligation existing in his favour, whether expressly or by implication.
(2) When any such obligation arises from contract, the Court shall guided by the rules and provisions contained in Chapter II.
(3) When the defendant invades or threatens to invade the plaintiff's right to, or enjoyment of, property, the Court may grant a perpetual injunction in the following cases, namely:
(a) where the defendant is trustee of the property for the plaintiff;
(b) where there exists no standard for ascertaining the actual damage caused, or likely to be caused, by the invasion;
(c) where the invasion is such that compensation in money would not afford adequate relief;
Page No. 22/24 Khushal Singh Rawat Vs Bhupal Singh Negi. CIV DJ No. 610862/16
(d) where the injunction is necessary to prevent a multiplicity of judicial proceedings."
39 In the present case, in decision of issue no. 5, it has been held that plaintiff has been entitled for the relief of possession, as prayed for. Thus, plaintiff has obligation in his favour and against defendant. Accordingly, the defendant is hereby restrained from creating third party interest in any manner in respect of the suit property i.e. ground floor of the property bearing no. C808, Vikas Puri, New Delhi18.
RELIEF 40 In view of decisions on issues no. 1 to 7, defendant is directed to handover physical peaceful possession of the suit property i.e. ground floor of the property bearing no. C808, Vikas Puri, New Delhi18 to plaintiff within three months from the date of this judgment. Further, defendant is restrained from creating any third party interest in any manner in respect of the suit property i.e. ground floor of the property bearing no. C808, Vikas Puri, New Delhi18. 41 Section 35 (2) of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 provides as under: Page No. 23/24 Khushal Singh Rawat Vs Bhupal Singh Negi. CIV DJ No. 610862/16 "Where the Court directs that any costs shall not follow the event, the Court shall state its reasons in writing." Thus, normally costs follow event. Accordingly, costs are also awarded in favour of plaintiff and against the defendant.
Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
File be consigned to Record Room.
(MAHAVIR SINGHAL)
Announced in Open Court ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE
today i.e. 21.10.2016 WEST/DELHI
Page No. 24/24 Khushal Singh Rawat Vs Bhupal Singh Negi. CIV DJ No. 610862/16